The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The problem there is that people may not decide that they want to die until they have realised that they have lost their marbles and their body is giving too much pain and would never be described as being 'of sound mind' or 'sound body.'.

I think that people ought to be able to make a 'living will',i.e. when one is younger and of sound mind and body, one could legally record at what state of mind and/or body, euthanasia should be enacted. It would then be up a committee perhaps comprising a doctor, one's solicitor and perhaps a close relative to make the decision in one's stead,

Good idea! My uncle suffers from Alzheimer's and currently has no idea where he is, or who his family is. I would hate the idea of him suffering uneccessarily before he finally dies.
 
It's odd that we try to give our pets comfortable deaths at appropriate times, but not ourselves. I'd opt for the former for myself and anyone I care about.

There's a moral issue as well. An enormous proportion of crippling US medical costs go to extending lives which are essentially over. The same money could, I imagine, provide safe drinking water for the whole of Africa. I would hate to see a penny spent on extending my life a moment longer than it was of any use to me.

It;s not a coincidence: the ravening greed which drives the medical establishment loves anything billable, and unconscious older people are sitting ducks. I was hit by a car bicycling once, regained consciousness a few hours later, and discovered the hospital had run three different sets of tests on me, at least one of which was redundant.
 
It's odd that we try to give our pets comfortable deaths at appropriate times, but not ourselves. I'd opt for the former for myself and anyone I care about.

There's a moral issue as well. An enormous proportion of crippling US medical costs go to extending lives which are essentially over. The same money could, I imagine, provide safe drinking water for the whole of Africa. I would hate to see a penny spent on extending my life a moment longer than it was of any use to me.

It;s not a coincidence: the ravening greed which drives the medical establishment loves anything billable, and unconscious older people are sitting ducks. I was hit by a car bicycling once, regained consciousness a few hours later, and discovered the hospital had run three different sets of tests on me, at least one of which was redundant.

Presumably after they'd double checked your insurance whilst you were asleep?
 
Interestingly and in fact, no, as I didn't have any. This led to a very intriguing bill, which I managed to pay eventually.Then, approximately one year later, I got another, larger bill for different parts of my treatment. They told me on the phone that I should have expected delays in getting this bill, as it involved correspondence by mail (this was a quarter century ago).

I said, (and I believe these were almost my exact words), "It's been ten months. What did you do, send it by rented mule? Stick it on the back of a snail and point it in the right direction?"

I never heard from them again, nor saw hide nor hair of the second bill. :emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NSIS
The BBC says the following :Citizens from EU countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote.
Are they saying citizens in these three countries will be able to vote? I assume that means British Citizens. So why not British Citizens in other EU countries?

Once again it appears the UK finds a way to cloud democracy.
 
The BBC says the following :Citizens from EU countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote.
Are they saying citizens in these three countries will be able to vote? I assume that means British Citizens. So why not British Citizens in other EU countries?

Once again it appears the UK finds a way to cloud democracy.

Malta and Cyprus are part of the Commonwealth and I think we have some form of relationship with Ireland. UK citicizens in other countries will have a vote if they have been registered here at any time in the last 15 years.
 
The BBC says the following :Citizens from EU countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote.
Are they saying citizens in these three countries will be able to vote? I assume that means British Citizens. So why not British Citizens in other EU countries?

Once again it appears the UK finds a way to cloud democracy.

We've been told here that if you've voted in a Uk election in last 15yrs, you will be eligible to vote in the referendum.
 
Why 15 years? So if you moved to an EU country before that you will not have a vote?

What is the significance of the 15 years?
 
There is a lot I hate about the EU, it's fawning to multi nationals for example, but we would be even worse off in many ways without it.
I think the economic argument is fallacious, the UK can operate successfully IN or OUT and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. The real argument is political and I would ignore the fact that there are some idiots in the leave camp. The stay camp has a share of idiots too.
Personally I wish we would commit properly to Europe and stop using the USA as our model. We would have fared much better if we had used Germany as a model IMO.
I'll probably vote to stay because it very much suits the Scottish perspective atm.

In other words politically it makes sense to stay with the EU and then to get properly involved to change it to a much more democratic system than we have atm.
 
Why 15 years? So if you moved to an EU country before that you will not have a vote?

What is the significance of the 15 years?

No idea! I will vote to stay. Not just because I live in a European country, but because you can only effect change from the inside.

And if Farage is for leaving, I definitely want to stay.
 
I'm sure that there are reasonable and intelligent reasons on both sides, but I've looked at the people in the Leave campaign and that's enough for me.
If they want us out, then it must make sense to remain in.
Agreed 100%. When the looney left join the far right in politics they are generally wrong. The answer is always the centre ground, the balance. There are a lot of bad things with the EU but there are a lot of good things as well.

My thoughts are that in or out it's doesn't really matter, Great Britain, providing it stays united and we don't have an extreme left wing/right wing government, will always be Great.
 
Agreed 100%. When the looney left join the far right in politics they are generally wrong. The answer is always the centre ground, the balance. There are a lot of bad things with the EU but there are a lot of good things as well.

My thoughts are that in or out it's doesn't really matter, Great Britain, providing it stays united and we don't have an extreme left wing/right wing government, will always be Great.
I look forward to splitting it up as soon as possible.
 
Many right wingers are about as strongly in favour of the UK remaining together as they are for leaving the EU. That is so illogical